Incoherent judgments using words which are not heard, spoken or written any more confound litigants. Judgments must make sense to those whose lives and affairs are affected by the outcome of a case, the Supreme Court has lashed out at the penchant of judges who resort to word-play and archaism in their judicial pronouncements.
Litigants are usually untrained in law. The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound them even more.
"The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges. Judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court also serve as precedents to guide future Benches," a Bench of Justices Dhananjaya Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna observed in a judgment which may serve as a wake-up call to members of the higher judiciary whose written words' meaning gets "lost in language".
‘Incomprehensible’ verdict
The Supreme Court's exasperation was voiced in a judgment authored by Justice Chandrachud. The apex court was dealing with a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment which they found, to say the least, "incomprehensible".
"Language of the kind in a judgment defeats the purpose of judicial writing. Judgment writing of the genre before us in appeal detracts from the efficacy of the judicial process," Justice Chandrachud observed.
If meaning is lost in language, the litigants would lose their trust in the judiciary.
"Confidence in the judicial process is predicated on the trust which its written word generates," Justice Chandrachud said.
Though each judge may have an individual style of judgment writing, their work should be lucid. A court verdict speaks to the society who are impacted by the discourse.
The court recommended the easily identifiable IRAC structure, that is, Issue-Rule-Application-Conclusion, for judgments.
The apex court also advised courts and tribunals to ensure that their judgments are easily accessible and signed using digital signatures.
